Evidence for Design?

[razredge]

I note that you have avoided answering these questions:

1. What are your sources of information?
2. Haven’t you heard of cases of persons thought to be dead who have recovered?
3. Do you believe no miracles have occurred for two thousand years?

I haven’t seen any evidence of resurrections, no - please share though?

I don’t know? I would say it’d be unlikely unless there’s been a gradual drop off in miracles throughout the centuries after Christ since there doesn’t seem to be much evidence of miracles occurring these days.

 

[LittleSoldier]

There seems to be some confusion about the meaning of “chance” - which is not surprising because it is used with five different meanings:

"1a**:** something that happens unpredictably without discernible human intention or observable cause b : the assumed impersonal purposeless determiner of unaccountable happenings : luck <an outcome decided by chance> c : the fortuitous or incalculable element in existence : contingency

2**:** a situation favoring some purpose : opportunity <needed a chance to relax>

3**:** a fielding opportunity in baseball (or cricket)

4a : the possibility of a particular outcome in an uncertain situation; also : the degree of likelihood of such an outcome <a small chance of success> b plural : the more likely indications <chance**s are he’s already gone>

5a : risk <not taking any chance**s> b : a raffle ticket

— chance adjective
— by chance : in the haphazard course of events <they met by chance>"

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chance

“By chance” is obviously equivalent to non-design but in the context of the entire universe it is clearer to use “Chance” (or non-Design) in contrast to “Design” - like Jacques Monod who entitled his book Chance and Necessity:

"One may well find oneself beginning to doubt whether life is “**the product **of an enormous lottery presided over by natural selection, blindly picking the rare winners from among numbers drawn at utter random.” (p.138)

In spite of this concession he concludes:

“Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution… is today the sole conceivable hypothesis, the only one that squares with observed and tested fact.” (ibid.) !

The issue is not the process but the initial state and the outcome: the existence of purposeful beings.

It is absurd to allow our lives to be ruled by incalculable elements which don’t know what they are doing. It is equally absurd to believe all knowledge is produced by elements which know precisely nothing! That is a metaphysical conjuring trick almost as fantastic as the belief that everything is derived from precisely nothing…

I propose that definition #3 be the only definition allowed in this thread.

 

[Sair]

It is absurd to allow our lives to be ruled by incalculable elements which don’t know what they are doing. It is equally absurd to believe all knowledge is produced by elements which know precisely nothing! That is a metaphysical conjuring trick almost as fantastic as the belief that everything is derived from precisely nothing…

First of all, our lives are not ruled just by incalculable elements. We are not scurrying blindly, but muddling our way along with an incomplete map - one that, for most people, will always remain incomplete. Perhaps that is part of the wonder of our existence. To quote Bertrand Russell,

Thus, while diminishing our feeling of certainty as to what things are, [philosophy] greatly increases our knowledge as to what they may be; it removes the somewhat arrogant dogmatism of those who have never travelled into the region of liberating doubt, and it keeps alive our sense of wonder by showing familiar things in an unfamiliar aspect.

And secondly, you are here speaking of knowledge as if it is an object, a thing in itself, rather than a relationship between subjects and objects. Knowledge can’t exist in the absence of a knower and a known.

I fail to see why it must be considered absurd to suppose that particles which are unable to think, as such, on their own, can combine and interact to store and process information, even in extremely complex ways. Improbable, perhaps, but hardly absurd. No more absurd than realising that individual H2O molecules don’t have to be wet in order to impart this characteristic to liquid water. Is the property of intelligence something separate and magical that cannot come about, as other properties clearly do, from structures, interactions and combinations at a molecular level?

And even if our existence is totally absurd - and some philosophers and even scientists would say it is - so what?

 

[reggieM]

I’m a bit confused by the term “sentential calculus.” Could you explain what this means?

Sentential calculus is a collection of formulas based on logic. The quote is referring to the functional processing in cells that use logic gates, that allow or prevent various on various conditions.

 

[tonyrey]

I propose that definition #3 be the only definition allowed in this thread.

I forgive you! :angel1:

 

[tonyrey]

1. What are your sources of information?

 

[tonyrey]

Wanstronian i’m afraid your wasting your time, even Al Moritz who is an actual biochemist (as well as a Catholic) can’t convince these people.

Argumentum ad hominem! An appeal to one biochemist’s opinion on a philosophical issue.

 

[tonyrey]

Sentential calculus is a collection of formulas based on logic. The quote is referring to the functional processing in cells that use logic gates, that allow or prevent various on various conditions.

In other words a mathematical information system that is supposed to have emerged out of eternal darkness!

 

[tonyrey]

It is absurd to allow our lives to be ruled by incalculable elements which don’t know what they are doing. It is equally absurd to believe all knowledge is produced by elements which know precisely nothing! That is a metaphysical conjuring trick almost as fantastic as the belief that everything is derived from precisely nothing…

You are totally missing the point. The very fact that we **don’t **allow our lives to be ruled by incalculable elements which don’t know what they are doing demonstrates that we act as if we are not ruled by them. The best test of any philosophy is not what we claim to believe but how we live.

Perhaps that is part of the wonder of our existence. To quote Bertrand Russell,

Thus, while diminishing our feeling of certainty as to what things are, [philosophy] greatly increases our knowledge as to what they may be; it removes the somewhat arrogant dogmatism of those who have never travelled into the region of liberating doubt, and it keeps alive our sense of wonder by showing familiar things in an unfamiliar aspect.

Since arrogant dogmatism is also rampant among physicalists/materialists/naturalists it hardly constitutes a rational argument… To think the sense of wonder is diminished by belief in God is absurd. Belief in purposeless particles is a soul-destroying cul de sac compared to the “mysterium tremendum et fascinans” which liberates the mind from a futile state of pessimism…

And secondly, you are here speaking of knowledge as if it is an object, a thing in itself, rather than a relationship between subjects and objects. Knowledge can’t exist in the absence of a knower and a known.

Materialism reduces subjects to objects! There is no essential difference between persons and things **if **they are all products of matter.

I fail to see why it must be considered absurd to suppose that particles which are unable to think, as such, on their own, can combine and interact to store and process information, even in extremely complex ways. Improbable, perhaps, but hardly absurd. No more absurd than realising that individual H2O molecules don’t have to be wet in order to impart this characteristic to liquid water. Is the property of intelligence something separate and magical that cannot come about, as other properties clearly do, from structures, interactions and combinations at a molecular level?

The hackneyed comparison of wetness to intelligence overlooks the fact that wetness is unaware that it exists. It is a physical attribute rather than a mental power.

And even if our existence is totally absurd - and some philosophers and even scientists would say it is - so what?

No one would **know **it is absurd…

How do you conjure up insight out of endless night?

 

[tonyrey]

One of the criteria of a philosophical explanation is its fertility. Design predicts:

1. The laws of nature and physical constants necessary for life will always hold good
2. A computed simulation of the origin and development of the universe will never demonstrate that physical events can produce intelligent beings
3. Human beings will always be regarded as rational and responsible for their
   behaviour
4. Human intelligence will always remain more creative, original, powerful and versatile than artificial intelligence
5. Neurological research will never explain all aspects of human activity

 

[wanstronian]

What is your position on the universal probability bound?

We’ve discussed this before. It’s an arbitrary number made up by (I think) Dembski that has no mathematical significance whatsoever.

Basically Dembski created a number from an arbitrary set of universal estimates, and blithely asserted, without evidence, that if anything shows a complexity in excess of that threshold, then it must be the product of an intelligent designer.

It’s complete fluff.

 

[wanstronian]

What are the characteristics of something that has the appearance of design – versus something that does not have the appearance of design? Can you refer to some scientific literature that defines and distinguishes between the two things (true design and appearance of design)?

No, but if one has copious evidence of naturalistic processes that have arrived at the artefact in question, including an abundance of historical precursors; further, if there is no sign that any intelligent agent had any hand in the creation of the artefact - indeed, if there is no evidence of the existence any intelligent agent capable of creating the artefact… then the only sensible course of action is to assume that no such agent exists.

If and when any evidence for this intelligent entity is discovered - that is the time to start discussing the activities it might have been involved in.

Has science been able to determine what purpose and intent are? If so, where are they be found, and how are they measured and tested?

You mean - is there a formula? No, and it’s a straw man question.

The discussion should be about evidence - that’s what’s science is all about. If ID is considered to be a science, then it should provide some credible evidence. It should make some predictions, design some experiments, publish some falsification criteria… do something scientific. It has never done so. It is not science. This fact has been demonstrated a thousand times.

ID is as ludicrous a proposition as its Creationism sub-derma.

 

[wanstronian]

It is a fact.

Ah yes, I keep forgetting - your opinion should be taken as objective fact.

I guess maybe God does exist - and it’s you?

 

[wanstronian]

Some individuals prefer not to see all the evidence for Design “paraded” because it conflicts with their parochial scheme of things!

I for one would love to see the evidence for Design presented. I don’t understand why they’ve been keeping it under wraps all this time!

 

[wanstronian]

Which has nothing to do with the interpretation of reality - apart from the legal presumption of responsibility for one’s actions (which presupposes free will).

Whatever - I was just rebutting your implication that I believe myself to be infallible. I’m not interested in a rabbit-hole.

It’s stupidity to attribute the existence of rational beings to purposeless particles.

There you are with your dogmatic battle-cry again. The fact is that nobody knows. The fact is that no non-natural phenomena has *ever *been demonstrated to exist. The logical course of action is to admit these two facts and pursue - in a rigorous and empirical manner - an answer to the problem. Not to simply invent an invisible fairy who waved a magic wand and made it happen - what actual knowledge does that provide? It’s the Argument from Ignorance (your favourite fallacy); it’s just God of the Gaps theological pugwash.

Prove that purposeless particles have produced rational beings and I shall submit to your authority…

Again with the smug emoticon. And the Argument from Ignorance. And the evasic shift of burden of proof.

You are still overlooking the fact that** science is not metaphysics**. It is only physicalists who believe science replaces metaphysics and explains the whole of reality - but unfortunately for you materialism is a mere hypothesis and it is self-destructive…

Please substantiate your claim that materialism is self-destructive. And while you’re about it, please explain why you consider materialism to be “a mere hypothesis” when it has vouchsafed us so many truths about our universe. And please provide an alternative to materialism, that has been demonstrated to be more robust and testable, and can therefore be considered more than “a mere hypothesis.” Please do these things without resorting ot the Argument from Ignorance. You have the floor.

You have stated your opinion and expressed it in a manner which is a flagrant breach of the forum rule that there should be respect for the beliefs of Catholics.

I know you’re in the habit of denying facts, but are you seriously refuting my statement that the Catholic-sponsored version of Evolution is different to the established scientific theory?

Words fail me.

. You are still overlooking the fact that science is not metaphysics. There is no established scientific theory accepted by all scientists that adversely affects the power, beauty and simplicity of Design because science is a subsection of human knowledge…

Ha! The “simplicity” of design, which just happens to need a virtually infinitely complex designer; which is so complex it must, by the rules of ID, have had an even more complex designer; which is so complex…

It’s fine that you arbitrarily place the falsification of ID beyond scientific evalution (while simultaneously claiming it’s a scientific theory!!!) - it’s what theists have been doing to God since science started proving the religious claims to be wrong. This is the same thing, but dressed up in a thin veil of pseudo-science. Science is getting rid of God, myth by myth, and God is running out of places to hide. Religiosity is declining worldwide, as more and more people choose instead to put their faith in something that has actually been shown to work.

 

[wanstronian]

The latest findings are showing the limits of NS. It is now thought to be a conservative process not a creative one.

Thought by whom?

 

[wanstronian]

I intend to respect the ban on the discussion of evolution. I’ve been pulled in too far and I won’t go any farther. However, your disdain of the Church appears to extend to a disdain of science and the truths for which it can provide evidence. I am a Catholic who happens to also be a scientist. I don’t believe in any “hijacked, wishy-washy, God-guided bastardization of the real theory.” Strange that you aren’t even aware that there is more than one theory! :tsktsk:

Of course I am aware that there are contentions in the scientific field. But they don’t extend to making Evolution a supernaturally-guided process. That is the difference between the Catholic version and what I refer to for convenience as the “established” version.

The Church is the Body of Christ and what she teaches is truth - tantamount to God teaching us. I am fully obedient to God and will happily believe what He “allows” me to accept while remaining a faithful Catholic.

Fine

Thank you for using an upper-case “C” in the word “Church.”

Not at all - it’s probably wise to disinguish between the organisation and your local building!

 

[cho_pilo]

1. Design explains all the most important aspects of existence: truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty, love, the order of the universe, the origin of life, the progressive development and existence of rational, autonomous, moral beings who have the capacity for unselfish love and the right to life, freedom and self-determination.

Scientific evidence for design consists of:

1. The laws of nature which are necessary for life and a rational existence.
2. The directiveness of living organisms.
3. The progressive nature of development.
4. The information system contained in the DNA code.
5. The survival of life despite overwhelming odds.
6. The development of the most complex phenomenon in the universe: the human brain.
7. The existence of rational, autonomous, moral and responsible beings with a capacity for unselfish love.

What are your views?

I see 7 dubious statements.
The ‘proof’ of existnce, is existence.
It exists, therefore it is.

That it is a particular way, and not some other way, does not indicate that it must be such a way, and cannot be another way.

That we have such a limited knowledge of all that exists, is a clear indicator than no person can say they are aware of ‘the most complex phenomenon in the universe’.
Common sense tells me this is not a true statement, or at a minimum, I have no evidence to support it.

The others are as easily dismissed.

 

[tonyrey]

The fact is that no non-natural phenomena has ever been demonstrated to exist.

False! Rational choices and decisions are not subject to natural laws.

It’s the Argument from Ignorance ; it’s just God of the Gaps theological pugwash.

An equally facile assertion - with far less cogency - is that it’s a Science of the Gaps materialistic fantasy. You have already conceded that your materialism is based on the Argument from Ignorance!

You are still overlooking the fact that science is not metaphysics. It is only physicalists who believe science replaces metaphysics and explains the whole of reality - but unfortunately for you materialism is a mere hypothesis and it is self-destructive…

Please substantiate your claim that materialism is self-destructive.

If thoughts have physical causes there is no guarantee that they are any more trustworthy than instincts - which are notoriously fallible…

Please explain why you consider materialism to be “a mere hypothesis” when it has vouchsafed us so many truths about our universe.

Materialism has provided us with no truths whatsoever. It is a metaphysical theory which asserts that everything is derived from matter.

And please provide an alternative to materialism, that has been demonstrated to be more robust and testable, and can therefore be considered more than “a mere hypothesis.”

The reality of both mind and matter is constantly demonstrated to be more robust and testable in every aspect of human activity. The notion of **mindless **robots is hopelessly inadequate.

You have stated your opinion and expressed it in a manner which is a flagrant breach of the forum rule that there should be respect for the beliefs of Catholics.

I know you’re in the habit of denying facts, but are you seriously refuting my statement that the Catholic-sponsored version of Evolution is different to the established scientific theory?

Irrelevant. It remains **a fact **that you have expressed your opinion in a manner which is a flagrant breach of the forum rule that there should be respect for the beliefs of Catholics.

.

You are still overlooking the fact that science is not metaphysics.

The “simplicity” of design, which just happens to need a virtually infinitely complex designer; which is so complex it must, by the rules of ID, have had an even more complex designer; which is so complex…

You are evading the fact that science is not metaphysics - and the fact that there is no established scientific theory accepted by all scientists which adversely affects the power, beauty and simplicity of Design. Science is a subsection of human knowledge…

Religiosity is declining worldwide, as more and more people choose instead to put their faith in something that has actually been shown to work.

False! Millions of individuals people are becoming so aware of the inanity, sterility and futility of materialism that they are becoming Christians - particularly in Asia, Africa and South America.

It’s fine that you arbitrarily place the falsification of ID beyond scientific evaluation (while simultaneously claiming it’s a scientific theory!!!)

False! I have not claimed Design is a scientific theory. Design is based partly on scientific evidence. And it would be falsified if:

1. Science explains the existence of truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love
2. Science presents a detailed blueprint of a feasible world is produced in which there are far fewer accidents, deformities, diseases and disasters
3. The laws of nature cease to hold good and no longer sustain life
4. Neurological research demonstrates that free will and responsibility are illusions
5. Scientific calculations demonstrate that it is extremely probable that life emerged fortuitously

 

[tonyrey]

*1. Design explains all the most important aspects of existence: truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty, love, the order of the universe, the origin of life, the progressive development and existence of rational, autonomous, moral beings who have the capacity for unselfish love and the right to life, freedom and self-determination.

An unsubstantiated assertion.

That it is a particular way, and not some other way, does not indicate that it must be such a way, and cannot be another way.

How do you **know **that?

That we have such a limited knowledge of all that exists, is a clear indicator than no person can say they are aware of ‘the most complex phenomenon in the universe’.
Common sense tells me this is not a true statement, or at a minimum, I have no evidence to support it.

Scientists agree that all existing evidence points to the fact that the human brain is the most complex phenomenon in the universe.

The others are as easily dismissed.

Another unsubstantiated assertion.